A Proposed Methods Framework and a Pilot Intervention for Workplace Design

  • Linda RolföEmail author
  • Jörgen Eklund
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 824)


The workspace design process offers opportunities for significant improvements of work environments at low costs. However, work environment experts and Occupational Health Services (OHS) personnel are not seen as natural partners, inhibiting their chances of getting experience. This paper reports results from a national pilot intervention project comprised of a methods framework and a course. The aim of the intervention was to teach these professionals reliable, cost-effective and feasible methods for conducting workplace design projects. The intervention also aimed to increase employee participation in workplace design processes and thereby achieve better impact in these cases. Methods were taught to 56 work environment experts, also creating incentives for them to practice this knowledge. These experts were given incentives to contact and offer their client organizations services for planning new work environments. In the long term, the competence within the field of workplace design on a national level hopefully will be improved.


Office planning Ergonomists Participatory design 


  1. Andersen SN, Broberg O (2014) Simulation in full-scale mock-ups: an ergonomics evaluation method?: In: CPH conference: 11th international symposium on human factors in organisational design and managementGoogle Scholar
  2. Blake RR, Mouton JS (1983) Consultation: a handbook for individual and organizational development. Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, ReadingGoogle Scholar
  3. Blakstad SH, Knudsen W (2008) Methods and tools for evaluation of usability in buildingsGoogle Scholar
  4. Bohgard M, Karlsson S, Lovén E, Mikaelsson L-Å, Mårtensson L, Osvalder A-L, Rose L, Ulfvengren P (2015) Arbete och teknik på människans villkor: preventGoogle Scholar
  5. Broberg O (2010) Workspace design: a case study applying participatory design principles of healthy workplaces in an industrial setting. Int J Technol Manag 51(1):39–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Broberg O, Andersen V, Seim R (2011) Participatory ergonomics in design processes: the role of boundary objects. Appl Ergon 42(3):464–472. Scholar
  7. Broberg O, Edwards K, Nielsen J., Hartmann TS, Momme E, Sperschneider W (2012) Scenario-based table top simulations. In: Proceedings of the 44th annual nordic ergonomics society conference, Kungl. Tekniska högskolan I StockholmGoogle Scholar
  8. Broberg O, Hermund I (2004) The OHS consultant as a ‘political reflective navigator’ in technological change processes. Int J Ind Ergon 33(4):315–326. Scholar
  9. Carayon P, Schoofs Hundt A, Karsh B-T, Gurses AP, Alvarado CJ, Smith M, Flatley Brennan P (2006) Work system design for patient safety: the SEIPS model. Qual Saf Health Care 15(Suppl 1):i50–i58. Scholar
  10. Davies R (2004) Adapting virtual reality for the participatory design of work environments. Comput Support Coop Work (CSCW) 13(1):1–33. Scholar
  11. Eklund J, Daniellou F (1991) Ergonomics and project management 1: important aspects in the planning of the project. Paper presented at the proceedings of the 11th congress of the international ergonomics association, designing for everyone, ParisGoogle Scholar
  12. Eklund J, Rolfö L (2016) Slutrapport: Projektering och planering av nya arbetsmiljöer.
  13. Elg M, Witell L, Poksinska B, Engström J, Mi Dahlgaard-Park S, Kammerlind P (2011) Solicited diaries as a means of involving patients in development of healthcare services. Int J Qual Serv Sci 3(2):128–145. Scholar
  14. Fröst P (2004) Designdialoger i tidiga skeden. Arbetssätt och verktyg för kundengagerad arbetsplatsutformning. Chalmers University of TechnologyGoogle Scholar
  15. Garrigou A, Daniellou F, Carballeda G, Ruaud S (1995) Activity analysis in participatory design and analysis of participatory design activity. Int J Ind Ergon 15(5):311–327CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hansson B, Olander S, Landin A, Aulin R, Persson U (2015) Byggledning Projektering övningsbok, vol 1. Studentlitteratur ABGoogle Scholar
  17. Hongisto V (2005) A model predicting the effect of speech of varying intelligibility on work performance. Indoor Air 15(6):458–468CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Horgen T (1999) Excellence by design: transforming workplace and work practice. John Wiley & Sons, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  19. Jarebrant C, Winkel J, Hanse JJ, Mathiassen SE, Öjmertz B (2016) ErgoVSM: a tool for integrating value stream mapping and ergonomics in manufacturing. Hum Factors Ergon Manuf Serv Ind 26(2):191–204. Scholar
  20. Karsak EE, Sozer S, Alptekin SE (2003) Product planning in quality function deployment using a combined analytic network process and goal programming approach. Comput Ind Eng 44(1):171–190. Scholar
  21. Krathwohl DR (2002) A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy: an overview. Theory Pract 41(4):212–218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kuorinka I (1997) Tools and means of implementing participatory ergonomics. Int J Ind Ergon 19(4):267–270. Scholar
  23. Kuorinka I, Patry L (1995) Participation as a means of promoting occupational health. Int J Ind Ergon 15(5):365–370. Scholar
  24. Liebregts J, Sonne M, Potvin JR (2016) Photograph-based ergonomic evaluations using the rapid office strain assessment (ROSA). Appl Ergon 52:317–324. Scholar
  25. Mullery GP (1979) CORE - a method for controlled requirement specification. Paper presented at the proceedings of the 4th international conference on Software engineering, Munich, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  26. Müller M (2015) OHS practitioners’ application of CAD-tools as medium for participatory design: facilitating the projection of office-layouts (2015:110 Student thesis).
  27. Patnaik D, Becker R (1999) Needfinding: the why and how of uncovering people’s needs. Des Manag Rev 10(2):37–43Google Scholar
  28. Prevent (2017) Forma kontoret/Nyttjandegradsmätningar.
  29. Prevent (2018) Allmän skyddsrond - Kontor.
  30. Rolfö L, Babapour Chafi M (2017) Policies for sharing workspaces in activity-based flex offices. Paper presented at the ACE-ODAMGoogle Scholar
  31. Rolfö L, Eklund J (2015) Examining office type preference. Paper presented at the nordic ergonomics society 47th annual conference, Lillehammer, NorwayGoogle Scholar
  32. Rolfö L, Eklund J, Jahncke H (2017a) Perceptions of performance and satisfaction after relocation to an activity-based office. Ergonomics 1–14:644–657. Scholar
  33. Rolfö L, Eliasson K, Eklund J (2017b) An activity-based flex office: planning processes and outcomes. Paper presented at the ACE-ODAMGoogle Scholar
  34. Seim R, Broberg O (2010) Participatory workspace design: a new approach for ergonomists? Int J Ind Ergon 40(1):25–33. Scholar
  35. Stanton NA, Hedge A, Brookhuis K, Salas E, Hendrick HW (2004) Handbook of human factors and ergonomics methods. CRC Press, Boca RatonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Valentin EK (2001) Swot analysis from a resource-based view. J Mark Theory Pract 9(2):54–69. Scholar
  37. Van Meel J, Martens Y, van Ree HJ (2010) Planning office spaces. A practical guide for managers and designers. Laurence King, LondonGoogle Scholar
  38. Westerdahl B, Suneson K, Wernemyr C, Roupé M, Johansson M, Martin Allwood C (2006) Users’ evaluation of a virtual reality architectural model compared with the experience of the completed building. Autom Constr 15(2):150–165. Scholar
  39. Wilson J (1991) Design decision groups–a participative process for developing workplaces. Taylor and Francis, London, pp 81–96Google Scholar
  40. Wilson JR, Sharples S (2015) Evaluation of human work. CRC Press, Boca RatonGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.KTH, Royal Institute of TechnologyHuddingeSweden

Personalised recommendations